Miranda warnings - often misunderstood

Miranda warnings are often misunderstood. In general, these rights explained to you if a policeman puts you under arrest. They have their origins in the United States Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). In general, should be informed that:

* You have the right to remain silent;

* If you give up that right, anything you say may be used against you in court;

* You have the right to consult a lawyer and a present before answering questions;

* If you can not afford a lawyer, one will be provided at state expense.

What is often misunderstood, if these rights must be explained. In general, a police officer shall declare the rights only when you're a "custodial interrogation subject. Of course, if you have been placed under arrest, these rights are explained before any questioning. Some situations are fact specific and can not be imprisonment or imprisonment for not clearly know how to stop the daily traffic. In general, if you are free to go out and stop talking with police, it is noted that non-custodial, and do not require Miranda warnings.

If the officer is not the Miranda warnings during a custodial interrogation problem, all the statements can be deleted with the admission process. This includes statements of evidence. Other elements as a result of the declaration may also get the part out.

---

Hotmail: อีเมลที่เชื่อถือได้ซึ่งมาพร้อมกับการป้องกันอีเมลขยะที่มีประสิทธิภาพ ลงทะเบียนเดี๋ยวนี้